22nd Century Technologies, Inc. (RS3-18-0081)

B-420139 Dec 09, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Telesis Corporation, also of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0081, issued by Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support services for product manager radars. The protester argues the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and the awardee's proposal. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  22nd Century Technologies, Inc. File:  B-420139 Date:  December 9, 2021 W. Brad English, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., J. Dale Gipson, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Carlin R. Walsh, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s upward adjustment of proposed cost is dismissed where protester fails to show competitive prejudice. DECISION 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Telesis Corporation, also of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-18-0081, issued by Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support services for product manager radars.  The protester argues the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and the awardee’s proposal. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2020, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside to all contract holders under the Department of the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services multiple award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1-3.  The RFP anticipated issuance of a task order on a fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost basis with a phase-in period of 1 month, a base period of 11 months, and four 12-month option periods.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFP at 1.  The due date for proposals, as amended, was April 1, 2020.  COS/MOL at 2. The RFP provided that proposals were to consist of three volumes:  technical, cost/price, and small business participation plan.  RFP at 3-4.  The technical volume was to address three subparts:  corporate experience, manpower, and management plan.  Id. at 4-6.  For corporate experience, the RFP instructed offerors to provide a minimum of one, and up to four, previous projects within the last five years.[2]  Id. at 4.  The solicitation required that at least one effort demonstrate the prime offeror’s experience providing services similar in size, meaning an effort involving at least 65 full-time employees.  Id.  Additionally, offerors were to provide a narrative explaining how the submitted projects demonstrated experience meeting or exceeding RFP requirements pertaining to program management, systems engineering, integrated logistics support, and planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) support.[3]  Id. at 5.  For price/cost, the RFP required offerors to provide the price for services, and travel and materials costs necessary to provide the services.  Id. at 6-11.  The RFP advised that services during the phase-in period would be awarded on a fixed-price basis, all other services would be awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, and travel and materials costs would be awarded on a cost basis with no fee.  Id. at 6.  The agency would evaluate these prices for fairness and reasonableness, and conduct a realism analysis of costs.  Id. at 15.  With regard to the cost realism analysis, the RFP provided that the agency might upwardly adjust the proposed cost to reach a “most probable cost,” if warranted, to ensure the cost elements were at “realistic levels.”  Id.  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the small business factor, and under the manpower and management plan subfactors, on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis; for the corporate experience subfactor, the agency would assign a rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable.[4]  Id.